list_games

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: 'Read-only, no auth required, cached ~5s server-side.' It also describes the return format and strategy hints, ensuring transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear sections: WHAT IT DOES, WHEN TO USE, PARAMS, RETURNS, STRATEGY HINT, RELATED. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for the complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite no output schema, the description provides a detailed return structure. It also covers caching, auth, usage strategy, and sibling tools. For a list tool with one parameter, this is fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter 'warmup' has a schema description, but the tool description adds actionable context: 'Include pre-first-bid rounds... Useful for sniping cheap first bids; otherwise filter them out.' This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description begins with 'List active and recently-settled $fomox402 game rounds,' which clearly specifies the verb 'list' and resource 'game rounds'. It distinguishes from siblings by stating 'Prefer over get_game when you don't already know the gameId.'

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly instructs 'WHEN TO USE: every poll cycle in autonomous mode, or whenever the agent needs to choose a round. Prefer over get_game when you don't already know the gameId.' This provides clear context and alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.